Andrew Wright

Two landowners appealed the engineer's report and the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the Nithburg Drain No. 2.

One appellant argued that the branch drain primarily benefited adjacent residential lots rather than his agricultural property, while the other objected to a drain stub on his property and its associated assessment.

The Tribunal found that the residential lots received more benefit from the branch drain than the agricultural property and ordered the assessments varied accordingly.

The Tribunal upheld the inclusion of the drain stub on the second appellant's property to provide a legal outlet, but ordered the addition of a hickenbottom connection.

The appeals were otherwise dismissed.

The appellants appealed an engineer's report on the Smith Drain Extension under section 48 of the Drainage Act.

The report proposed constructing two storm water management structures (Alternative 1) to address erosion on the appellants' property.

The appellants preferred Alternative 3, which included a fenced detention pond and a closed drain.

The Tribunal found that Alternative 3 was the optimal long-term solution, as Alternative 1 would only relocate the erosion problem.

The Tribunal ordered the report referred back to the engineer to redesign the drainage works incorporating Alternative 3.

The Corporation of the Township of North Huron applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for permission to procure an engineer's report under Section 76 of the Drainage Act to vary the assessment on the Whitfield Municipal Drain.

The Tribunal granted the application, noting that the neighboring Municipality of Morris-Turnberry did not object and that the engineer recommended a Section 76 report as the required work did not warrant the cost of a Section 78 report.

The County of Oxford appealed the assessments made against County Road 59 in the Engineer's Report for the Donaldson and Hallock Drains 2001.

The County argued that the assessments for benefit were disproportionate to the actual benefit received by the road.

The Tribunal found that the engineer's report did not sufficiently detail the method of assessments and that the amount assessed to the County for Branch A of the Donaldson Drain was excessive.

The Tribunal ordered a reduction in the County's assessment by $7,780 and redistributed this amount among the direct benefiting lots to allow the drainage works to proceed without delay.

Multiple landowners appealed the Final Engineer's Report regarding the Allanport Road Municipal Drain under sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act.

The appellants raised concerns regarding the necessity of certain branch drains, the requirement to participate in a common stormwater management pond, water quality monitoring, and the appropriateness of their assessments.

The Tribunal ordered the deletion of the upper portion of Branch Drain #8, allowed landowners to opt out of the stormwater management pond, provided for water quality monitoring for the Cytec property, and adjusted certain assessments accordingly.

The engineer was directed to consolidate the changes into a revised report.

Multiple landowners appealed the revised Final Engineer's Report on the Allanport Road Municipal Drain under sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act.

At the hearing, a preliminary motion was brought regarding the validity of the petition for the upstream portion of Branch No. 8.

The Tribunal found that no petition meeting the requirements of the Drainage Act was filed within the time prescribed by its previous interim order.

Consequently, the Tribunal ordered the deletion of the upper portion of Branch No. 8 from the proposed work and directed the engineer to prepare a document recommending changes to the report and assessment schedules.

The appellant appealed under section 64 of the Drainage Act regarding the quality of construction of improvements made to the McLellan Drain.

The appellant raised concerns about work done on his property without permission, damage to a private tile outlet, and erosion on the main branch.

The Tribunal found that the work was substantially completed as described in the engineer's report and was of adequate quality.

The appeal was dismissed, with the Tribunal clarifying that a portion of the drain on the appellant's property was part of the municipal drain.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report and the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the repair and improvement of the Outlet North Marsh Drain.

They argued that the proposed extension of the drain and erosion control work downstream of Victoria Road was solely for the benefit of a specific property and was necessitated by back-flow from the Thames River, not the drain itself.

The Tribunal accepted the engineering evidence that the erosion was not caused by the Thames River back-flow and that the extension was necessary for a sufficient outlet.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal against the report but allowed the assessment appeal in part, ordering a special benefit assessment of $30,000 against the downstream property most at risk from the erosion.

The applicants requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision regarding the Fekete Drain.

They raised issues concerning the validity of the petition, the value of trees removed, the benefit assessed, the drain's location, and costs incurred.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the drain had already been constructed and the applicants failed to provide any new evidence that could not have been presented at the original hearing.

The appellant producer appealed a decision not to cancel a positive inhibitor test result on a sample of milk taken from his farm, which resulted in a penalty and disposal costs.

The milk was found to contain an unprecedented level of penicillin, far exceeding what could result from milking treated cows.

The Tribunal found that the contamination was the result of third-party action and that the problem could not reasonably have originated from the producer's farming operations.

The appeal was granted, the test result was removed from the record, and the producer was relieved of the penalty and disposal costs.

The appellant appealed a decision by AGRICORP denying a crop insurance claim for its 1999 Spanish onion crop.

During the hearing, the parties reached a settlement agreement for $54,223.30.

The Tribunal endorsed the settlement and allowed the appeal to the extent of the settlement amount.

Several landowners appealed the decision of the Court of Revision and the engineer's report regarding the proposed Harmony Road Drain in the Township of Delhi.

The appellants argued that the drain would not benefit their lands and that the costs were not commensurate with the benefits.

The Tribunal found that the proposed drainage works would provide a necessary outlet for upstream lands and that the overall advantages to the watershed outweighed the costs.

The Tribunal also upheld the engineer's assessments as fair and reasonable, dismissing all appeals.

The appellants appealed the assessments and allowances for the proposed Fekete Drain under the Drainage Act.

They raised concerns about the benefit assessment for an open ditch through their woodlot, the lack of compensation for tree damage, and the size and cost of a farm crossing culvert.

The Tribunal found the benefit assessment for the open ditch was too high compared to downstream properties and ordered it reduced.

However, the Tribunal upheld the engineer's approach to allowances for damages, noting commitments to minimize tree damage during construction.

The Tribunal also ordered the report amended to lengthen the culvert and specify equipment access routes.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the assessment of costs for a report on future maintenance of the Zoller Drain and Zoller Drain Extension.

The report's costs were largely driven by the need to convert block assessments to individual lot assessments following the amalgamation of the Village of West Lorne and the Township of Aldborough.

The Tribunal found the engineer's equal per-property assessment method unfair to small non-agricultural lots.

The Tribunal ordered the costs to be reapportioned: a fixed amount to the former Township, a small per-lot fee to the former Village, and the balance to the amalgamated Municipality's roads and streets, reflecting the costs of amalgamation.

The Town of Lakeshore applied to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal for a modification to By-law No. 16-94 concerning the Discoverer Outlet Drain.

The modification involved realigning the drain on the Stoney Point Sportsmen's Club property, reducing construction costs, and increasing allowances for land used.

The Tribunal approved the requested amendments under Section 51 of the Drainage Act, subject to terms including notice to landowners and a 14-day appeal period.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report and the Court of Revision's decision regarding the repair and improvement of a municipal drain.

They sought compensation for past drain repairs, increased crop damage allowances, and changes to the cost assessments.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to address the 1982 repair issues and upheld the engineer's cost assessments as fair.

However, the Tribunal increased the crop damage allowance to $600 per acre, finding the engineer's use of input costs rather than crop value to be unusual.

The Tribunal also ordered the municipality to bear the hearing costs because it had reneged on a prior settlement agreement that could have avoided the hearing.

The Municipality of Chatham-Kent applied to the Tribunal for a modification to a by-law concerning the repair and improvement of a drain and culvert.

After the original report was adopted, the property was severed, making the planned culvert location unsuitable for agricultural access.

The Tribunal used its authority under section 51 of the Drainage Act to approve the requested amendments to the by-law, subject to terms including notice to landowners and a 14-day appeal period.

The appellants appealed the engineer's report and the decision of the Court of Revision regarding the reconstruction and reassessment of a municipal drain.

The appellants argued that the existing drain was sufficient for their needs and that the cost of the proposed upgrade was not commensurate with the benefits.

The respondent municipality, supported by the engineer and another landowner experiencing ponding and crop loss, argued the upgrade was necessary to meet current design standards.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the project had merit and that the appellants failed to provide concrete evidence to justify abandoning the work or altering the assessments.

Several ratepayers appealed the proposed Bradley Drainage Works Lot 246 Lane Culvert Replacement under sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act.

The appellants argued that the existing culvert should be repaired rather than replaced, or alternatively, that a new lane should be constructed to avoid the need for a crossing.

The Tribunal accepted the engineering evidence that the existing culvert was structurally deficient and could not be repaired to an acceptable standard.

The Tribunal also found that constructing a new lane would be more expensive and might not meet Ministry of Transportation requirements.

The Tribunal upheld the engineer's assessment methodology, which divided the cost 50% as benefit to the adjacent owner and 50% as outlet to the upstream watershed.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellant, H. A. Staff Limited, appealed a decision of the Ontario Grape Growers’ Marketing Board denying a proposal to calculate Board fees as a single percentage point of the gross market value for all classes of grapes.

The appellant argued the current fee structure, which includes a flat rate plus a percentage of market value, disproportionately burdened lower-priced grape classes.

The Tribunal found the current method of spreading generic costs via a flat fee plus a percentage of crop value to be reasonable and fair.

The appeal was denied.